Representative attempting to alter Ohio firearm law

This is a discussion on Representative attempting to alter Ohio firearm law within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; i came across this site by accident when i checked on the weather in grand lakes st mary
The Evening Leader - Representative attempting to ...

ST. MARYS — For the second time in two years, an area legislator is attempting to change the concealed and carry law via a new bill. State Rep. John Adams, R-Sidney, last week introduced House Bill 129 — a measure that seeks to change the current concealed and carry law. The proposal would not require residents who are legally allowed to carry, possess and purchase firearms to obtain a permit to do so. Other changes include stripping the stipulation requiring permit holders to carry the permit while carrying a firearms as well as informing approaching law enforcement officials that a person is carrying a concealed weapon.

"I introduced this last year in the General Assembly and it only had one committee hearing," Adams said. "We made some changes to it."
Adams said the most glaring change comes in the form of stripping the requirement of obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The change, Adams said, is aimed at protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

"You still have to go through the training and keep the paper that says you went through the training," Adams said. "All it does is eliminate the licensing aspect, but it does allow you to choose to go through that process. It's a hybrid — you can do either."

The bill, which Adams likened to the Alaska-style Carry, also repeals mandates for re-qualification. The proposal also would allow the weapons to be carried on college campuses.

"Vermont has no licensing aspect whatsoever," Adams said.

"The law-abiding citizen doesn't change from state to state. That's always been my main thrust on arguing these points — the law-abiding citizen."

Adams said he believes law-abiding citizens should not be punished because of a fear of criminals. Instead, Adams said the law should protect the rights of the law-abiding citizens.

"There shouldn't be any alarmism on this," Adams said. "A law-abiding citizen in Vermont is not required to be licensed and I think it is a fundamental right (to carry)."

While the bill failed to clear committee hearings last year, Adams said he hopes the proposal makes it to the floor for a vote. However, the Sidney resident stopped short of making any predictions.

"I look forward to the committee hearing process," Adams said. "We are guaranteed one hearing and you go from there. I find on both sides of the aisle that they do understand the law abiding citizen aspect of it. They are not criminals and shouldn't be treated as such."
Auglaize County Sheriff Al Solomon said he agrees with the protection of law-abiding citizens' rights, but favors some type of oversight on the topic.

Solomon said the current system, which implements background checks, has safeguards in place to reduce the chances of a disqualified person from obtaining a permit.

"I think you have to have some regulations in place," Solomon said. "You still have to consider the safety of law enforcement officers who are making those traffic stops in are in other situations."

St. Marys Police Chief Greg Foxhoven said he favors keeping the licensing aspect of the law as well as background checks. The measures, the police chief said, offer some safeguards for the public.

"If it isn't broke don't fix it," Foxhoven said. "I support the idea there is training and there is a license. I think it's been working and there haven't been any issues, at least locally."

I like the way that guy thinks!!! I hope he can get it passed. The only thing I disagree with is not having to be upfront with LEO. I'd rather tell them upfront rather than let them find out on their own.

Nobody prevents you from doing so.
If you get stopped by LEO, you can tell him that you carry.
IMHO, the new law would prevent all those cases, where the LEO writes you up, because you have not told him up front.
In one case the officer asked for the drivers license and insurance, before my friend was able to tell him about the gun.

I dont know if missed something in the article. What happens to reciprosity with other states that require the permit to carry? How do you prove you have a permit with no paper and what happens if you are stopped by LE out of state?

I dont know if missed something in the article. What happens to reciprosity with other states that require the permit to carry? How do you prove you have a permit with no paper and what happens if you are stopped by LE out of state?

The same thing that happens if you are from alaska or Vermont. f you want the reciprocity, then you have to get the CHL.

Ohio will lose reciprocity if the bill passes. Other states will require some proof of process (permit/license) to allow them to carry within their state. It sounds good, but I can see where it will go astray if a Buckeye travels anywhere else with a weapon and no HCP/HCL. This wouldn't fly under the proposed Federal Law either as it requires full certification (HCP/HCL) from your mother state to allow carrying in another state.

It will be like not requiring a drivers license. Go driving in a state that does require a license and you will end up with your keister in the clink and your car impounded. You can yell all you want, but you fall under their laws when you cross the state line!

Regarding the article "Representative attempting to alter Ohio firearm law" on April 17:

Does Sheriff Solomon really believe that requiring a background check for a permit will make criminals (they are the ones that break the law, in case I'm moving too fast here) not carry illegal weapons?

And Chief Foxhoven thinks it's OK to continue taxing citizens for the 'privilege' to carry concealed in these tough economic times! He should have been invited to the tea party.

It certainly sounds like law enforcement leadership is in need of a house cleaning.

I don't know...I don't see the law taking away the license procedure ever. And truely, I don't mind the license. You have to take the class anyhow, why not just get the license. The wait time is what sucks, because you know they could turn those license around in a day if they wanted too...just like a driver's license.

Now getting rid of the renewal license makes sense to me, or at least making it easy to renew...just like a driver's license. You should just be able to renew online and be done with it. But just getting rid of renewal would be best.

And I don't mind telling a LEO I'm carrying if the need arises. It's just a professional courtsey that allows the LEO to be at ease for one of the 20 traffic stops he makes each day. There's nothing wrong with that. Most of them appreciate a CC holder.

I think they should add something in about being able to carry in a resturant (bar excluded) that serves alcohol. Most fancy places serve some sort of alcohol, yet most people are not drinking like it's Friday night. I hate having to leave my firearm in the car when I go to Pizza Hut.

I just wish the guy promoting this bill would tone it down a little. Try and get smaller pieces of the pie to go through instead of so many changes at one time. But then again...I know little about how politics work.